Hey, this is a debate or did you forget? You did not even respond to what I said, but instead fled to another subject. Try responding to what someone says, it makes for a better debate.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why don't Baptists believe Acts 2:38 literally?
- Thread starter Wittenberger
- Start date
- Status
Hey, this is a debate or did you forget? You did not even respond to what I said, but instead fled to another subject. Try responding to what someone says, it makes for a better debate.
According to 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 that choice is "TO" salvation but "THROUGH" sanctification of the Holy Spirit AND belief of the truth.
Therefore it is correct to say that salvation is by God's choosing (cause) but it is not without our choosing (consequence). - Impossible for infants.
Again 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 tells us that we can know our election because the gospel does not come in word only but in power and in the Spirit and in MUCH ASSURANCE! - Impossible for infants.
There is not one command, not one example of any infant being baptized in the New Testament and generally all passages used to INFER such are DRY passages.
The question is not whether baptism saves, as the scriptures clearly says it does. The question is not whether baptism washes away sins, as the scriptures clearly says it does. However, the question is HOW does baptism save and wash away sins - literally or figuratively. The scriptues clearly says it does as a "FIGURE" - 1 Peter. 3:21.
Moreover, the same can be said of the sacrficial and ceremonial system in the Old Testament. The language of redemption was always directly connected with sacrifices and ceremonial cleansings ("for sins" "for thy cleansing") however, Hebrews 10:1-4 informs it did not LITERALLY remit or wash away sins at all but only did in figure as a "shadow."
Jesus illustrates this clearly in Luke 5:12-15 with the cleansing of the leper:
12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
He was LITERALLY cleansed "immediately"
He was nevertheless told to go "offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded." This involved a sacrfice "for thy cleansing." Did he offer the sacrifice in order to be cleansed but because he had been cleansed? Both! He offered a sacrifice in order to be cleansed CEREMONIALLY or FIGURATIVELY because he had already been cleansed LITERALLY.
Bottom line it was "for a testiomy unto them." Likewise with baptism and the Lord's Supper as they are New Testament counterparts to Old Testament ceremonial institutions.
So it is very simple. When one believes they are saved LITERALLY. When one submits to baptism they are saved FIGURATIVELY. Scripture must be compared to scripture if truth is to be arrived at.
Wittenberger
New Member
We are talking past each other, my Baptist brother.
In order to be able to have a debate there has to be a fundamental principle that we can start from. I believe in interpreting the Bible literally, ALWAYS, unless the writer makes it very clear he is not speaking literally.
Baptists don't seem to share this belief. I can't debate someone who reinterprets verses when they disagree with his position.
God bless you, my brother.
If you want to know more about Lutheranism go to:
http://www.LutherWasNotBornAgain.com
No, you are ignoring my response. I admitted that the passage literally states exactly what it says. I admitted that it literally states baptism washes away sins. Can't be more literal than that. However, you must admit the text does not inform us HOW baptism washes away our sins. I have also addressed the HOW of it by LITERAL interpretation of Hebrews 10:1-4; 1 Peter. 3:21 and Luke 5:12-15.
I believe that scriptures should always be LITERALLY interpreted unless the immediate context and/or overall context demands otherwise.
So you see I am not talking past you at all but directly addressing your intrepretation.
I think yoiu have to ask what 'for' means! I always found a dictionairy helps because words have semantic ranges, 'for' can be used synonymously/ interchangeably with 'because' in certain contexts.
And I am doing that, then equally you are taking words out of God's mouth because you don't even complete the sentence in your quote
Literally or literallisticly as you do?
As for our understanding of the bible, firstly it shows a base ingorence of history to associate the baptists with the anabaptists. They are very distinct groups that do share a common family tree, secondly have you heard of the Didache? Our baptismal practise has the support of the earliest christains writinsg outside of the scriptures themselves - the lutheran view does not!
Tell me where in the bible we read that God 'repents' on our behalf! Afterall you claim to be the one who takes the bible lieterally - where is this repentence of God to be found?
Wittenberger, the problem is not that you don't understand Greek. The problem is that you don't understand English.
"I went to the store for my wife." Did I go to the store to GET my wife or did I go to the store because of my wife?
"I got a medal for bravery." Which came first the medal or the bravery?
"I got a ticket for speeding." Which came first the ticket or the speeding?
"Baptized for the remission of sin." Which came first the baptism or the remission?
Pretty simple when you lay aside your denominational dogmatism and let the scriptures speak for themselves.
"I went to the store for my wife." Did I go to the store to GET my wife or did I go to the store because of my wife?
"I got a medal for bravery." Which came first the medal or the bravery?
"I got a ticket for speeding." Which came first the ticket or the speeding?
"Baptized for the remission of sin." Which came first the baptism or the remission?
Pretty simple when you lay aside your denominational dogmatism and let the scriptures speak for themselves.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Wittenberger, the problem is not that you don't understand Greek. The problem is that you don't understand English.
"I went to the store for my wife." Did I go to the store to GET my wife or did I go to the store because of my wife?
"I got a medal for bravery." Which came first the medal or the bravery?
"I got a ticket for speeding." Which came first the ticket or the speeding?
"Baptized for the remission of sin." Which came first the baptism or the remission?
Pretty simple when you lay aside your denominational dogmatism and let the scriptures speak for themselves.
The first part is funny, and the rest is true. Excellent!
Wittenberger
New Member
And I am doing that, then equally you are taking words out of God's mouth because you don't even complete the sentence in your quote
Literally or literallisticly as you do?
As for our understanding of the bible, firstly it shows a base ingorence of history to associate the baptists with the anabaptists. They are very distinct groups that do share a common family tree, secondly have you heard of the Didache? Our baptismal practise has the support of the earliest christains writinsg outside of the scriptures themselves - the lutheran view does not!
I'm glad you are in agreement with me that the Didache is an authoritative source for confirming one's beliefs on the doctrine of Baptism. Here is a quote from the Didache:
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
It does not discuss the meaning of baptism. It does discuss that immersion is the preferred method of baptism, but there are other acceptable methods of baptism. Lutherans practice immersion. We believe that Christ was most likely immersed. But we also practice pouring, as the Didache states above, as it was considered an acceptable practice in the first century.
Brother, I am trying to comment on four different threads and I'm spending too much time on the computer. I'm in the dog house with the wife.
I am going to limit my comments to one thread, the thread entitled: "Is there any historical evidence that supports the Baptist position on Baptism?" I have agreed to debate "Biblicist" on that thread. Please make further comments to me there.
Peace be with you.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am a baptist, but would say that while the preferred and the biblical model is believers baptism, would say that being done in a different fashion than imersion is different than one say that there is regeneration in the act of it...
That there is a Grace of some type within the act of it happening...
Wittenberger
New Member
The definition of "grace" is: God's unmerited favor. Do you stop receiving "grace" after you are saved, or does God continue to give you "grace"?
Is God limited to giving you grace just when you make a decision to believe? If you believe that then you are an Arminian Christian. You believe that God requires your free will decision to save you.
A sizable number of Baptists, including a large minority in the Southern Baptist Convention, would not agree with you. They do not believe that a sinner, who according to the Bible is dead in sins, can make a free will decision to believe. These Baptists believe that God predestines who he will save, and quickens them to believe at a time of his choosing. Salvation is dependent on God and his time table, not on you and your decision to believe. You believe and repent because he quickens you, not the other way around.
These Baptists are called Calvinists, or Reformed Baptists. There are alot of them.
We Lutherans agree with Calvinists. God chooses whom to save and when to save. That is why we believe that God can save a "pagan" adult when he hears the Gospel preached and be immediately saved, AND we believe that God can save infants by the power of his spoken Word, pronounced at baptism, to save. In both instances it is God saving, not the sinner making a decision to be saved.
Now, Calvinist/Reformed Baptists do not agree with Lutherans that the Bible states that God chooses to save at Baptism, but they do believe that God has to do 100% of the saving. The sinner does not conduct a "salvation transaction" with God, where the sinner brings his faith and repentance, and God brings forgiveness and eternal life. That is a doctrine of works. God does not need your assistance to save you. He does it all by himself, when he chooses, sometimes as an adult hearing the Gospel preached and sometimes as an infant by the power of his Almighty Word, keeping his promise that he gives to Christian parents in Acts 2:38.
For more details on the Lutheran view of Salvation go to:
http:www.LutherWasNotBornAgain.com
Wittenberger
blog author
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals
I hold to the DoG, and belive that "Grace" as the bible defines it is fully and totally in the act of jesus death as atonement for my sins, and once he becomes my Lord and saviour, ALL necessary Grace has already come from God to my behalf!
prayer, bible reading/study, fellowshipping etc are ways to grow and maturity, but not "grace" towards me!
I'm glad you are in agreement with me that the Didache is an authoritative source for confirming one's beliefs on the doctrine of Baptism. Here is a quote from the Didache:
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).More accurate would be to say here is a portion of the quote, in full it reads;
didache said:
A one ot two day fast is ordered prior to the baptism, now to me this suggests that infants were not the recipients of the this baptism! Notice also it says that one must first have 'rehearsed these things' - to what does that refer I wonder? To having to confirm certain beliefs prior to ones baptsim!
So, in this little chapter we have a baptism following a verbal profession, preferrably by immersion - it couldn't get more baptist them that my freind!
I never said it did! The word simply means to 'to dip' and is transliteration of the greek term for which Tyndale is still answering today, if he had translated this word instead of creating a new english term many of todays debates would be over ion the church!
Only when no other option was available!
I am sorry - but my naswer stands on this thread I am afriad
I can't find that thread!
Michael Wrenn
New Member
The EOC baptizes by immersion only -- even babies! That should tell anyone what those who read the original Greek NT believed about the mode of baptism.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Yes this is true.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
In fact, they dunk not once but three times. Evidence for this triple immersion goes back to perhaps the late 1st century in the early church manual The Didache. In the same document, however, pouring is mentioned as acceptable alternative.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
This is also true.
- Status